February 26, 2008

7:58 ET: I am so ready for this. It's do or die time for Hillary. And I'm watching the debate with a big Hillary supporter. I want to see some major action in the first 20 minutes. MSNBC is banging drums and hyping the debate (which starts in an hour). They show a picture of Jonah Goldberg and call him a "clown" who compared Obama to Hitler. I think the sensible people will switch over to "American Idol" and then return to MSNBC when this silliness is over.

9:01: "Oh, the debate."

9:04: Brian Williams plays Hillary the "I am absolutely honored" from the last debate followed by the "shame!" routine from the other day. What's with the mood swings? It's a "contested" campaign, she says and segues into a discussion of health insurance. The follow-up is about the "native garb" photo of Obama. Hillary doesn't know where it came from and doesn't condone it. Obama accepts her assertion about the "native garb" photo. Both of them derail Williams's plan and make this whole huge segment of the debate about the details of their rival health care programs. It's one filibuster after another.

9:19: Hillary seems to think that her getting the first question again is worthy of note, and she makes a clumsy reference to "Saturday Night Live," something about Barack Obama needing "another pillow." I don't like this infantalizing of Obama, and I don't her acting like people are picking on her. Tim Russert is struggling with her over NAFTA now, really trying to pin her down. Is she ready to opt out of NAFTA in 6 months? She says yes — unless it can be renegotiated on labor and environmental standards. This sounds harsh, but since Obama proceeds to agree with her entirely, it's not a point of distinction and should have no effect on anyone's decision.

9:35: Is anyone still watching? So far, it's been an annoying combination of wonky and angry.

9:48: Tim Russert seems angry too as he hypothesizes about how the Iraqis may react to a new President announcing a planned pullout.

9:53: "I think Senator Clinton showed some good humor there," Obama says after seeing the clip of Hillary being sarcastic about his speaking ("the heaven's will open," etc.). He nicely avoids the bait and gets back to talking policy (which is exactly what his strategy should be, since it's only Clinton who can benefit by shaking things up tonight). "I'm not interested in talk. I'm not interested in speeches," he says. Hillary offers that she was "having a little fun," and it's hard to have fun on the campaign trail.

10:08: Russert is raging. Hillary needs to release her tax returns! (She's too busy to do it before next Tuesday, she says, as if she'd personally get the papers together.) Obama should denounce Farrakhan! (He blusters.)

10:13: Hillary scores! When she ran for the Senate in 2000, she rejected the support of the anti-Semitic Independence Party. She "wouldn't be associated with people" like that. So far, Obama has only said that he gave a sermon denouncing anti-Semitism. Then there's some confusing byplay over whether "reject" is a stronger word than "denounce," and Obama gets away with resolving it by saying he would "reject and denounce." So her strong point got fuzzed over. He still hasn't denounced Farrakhan. She loses the moment and says "good, good." He beams. We go to commercial. Her moment is squandered. He got away with something there.

10:19: Obama is confronted with his "most liberal" ranking. I find his talking tiresome and will need to check the transcript to see if he said anything interesting.

10:33: In lieu of a closing statement, each is asked about the other, and many tedious words are blabbed. Arghhh! I hit the wall after that reject-and-denounce fiasco.

11:18: So what did you think of "American Idol"? Did David Cook deserved to be slammed for liking crossword puzzles when the other guys were about tennis and drag racing? Cook was the hardest rocker... yet somehow he's a pussy because he's — by his own admission — a "word nerd." Tonight was interesting because 2 guys who were unimpressive last week were really good: Chikezie and David Hernandez. I really liked Hernandez doing "Papa Was a Rolling Stone" — it was 70s night — what a great song. Now, I'm watching the adorable, scream-inducing David Archuleta singing "Imagine." Randy — who loves him — asks why he skipped the first verse. David does not say because it's against religion, just that he had to cut it shorter and he likes the last verse best, but I think he didn't want to disrespect religion. Now Paula says she wants to hang him from her rear view mirror, which I suppose means she thinks he's Jesus. Either that or she thinks he's air freshener. But the way she goes on to break down crying over how it was the most beautiful thing she's ever heard, I don't think it can just be that he's super-fresh. Simon says "Right now, you're the one to beat." Two guys who fell in my estimation this week were Michael Johns (why is the macho guy bleating Fleetwood Mac?) and Jason Castro (dull). And what are we to think of Luke Menard? He picked an incredibly complicated song — "Killer Queen" — and pulled it off decently (but couldn't be Mercury). Something I don't even want to think about: Robbie Carrico singing "Hot Blooded" (man, I hate that kind of song). Or Jason Yeager (what a cheeseball!). And then there's Danny Noriega. He's very sweet, and he sang a great song ("Superstar"), but he's just not good enough. (Here, listen to Karen Carpenter sing it.) He could be the Sanjaya this year, but the young girls are going crazy for the kid who's actually really good, li'l David Archuleta, so we won't be having a Sanjaya.

192 comments:

I wonder what she could do to turn the tide. I think people just don't like her. They like him. So what she'll do is try to drag him into the mud, and they'll just like her even less.

Neither one can wait to surrender to Al Qaida in Iraq, and I suppose that's one thing this will turn on. "I will surrender in one minute." "Well, I will surrender in 59 seconds."

Maybe she'll come up with a new photo of him cross-dressed. She's gotta pull some image out of her hat that shreds him in the eyes of the far left. What image would that even be? What kind of cigarettes he smoked? Show him with a cigarette in his mouth?

There's a holdup in the netBrooklyn's broken out the lights! There's a traffic jam in commentsThat's backed up by lesser lights There's an althouse short a wit! Our grammar’s turned to shit! Reader_iam where are you?!

Well, Jonah did compare Obama, and Hillary, and every liberal and every Democrat (including you, Ann, by logical extension) to Hitler. You're all fascists, Goldberg says. And he is a clown.

As long as there is a Fox News, I am grateful for MSNBC. In a perfect world, we'd have journalistic objectivity. But Fox News is an extension of the Republican Party. We could use a competing cable news network that functions as an extension of the Democratic Party.

Of course, MSNBC is not quite as servile to the interests of the Democrats as Fox News is to the interests of Republicans, but it does have a few liberals in the mix with a few conservatives who are willing to express a liberal point of view and defend it.

Is Fox News still in business? Of course it is. Do you know that Olbermann has the highest ratings of anyone at his network, with almost twice as many viewers as the next most popular show? Olbermann consistently beats every show on CNN by large margins. You may not like it, but you will have to live with the fact that he is wildly successful, a major boon for MSNBC, and extremely popular.

Kirby said: She's gotta pull some image out of her hat that shreds him in the eyes of the far left. What image would that even be? What kind of cigarettes he smoked? Show him with a cigarette in his mouth?

She was driving last Friday on her way to CincinnatiOn a snow white Christmas EveGoing home to see her delegates with a sleepy Bill in the backseatFifty miles to go and she was running low on faith and gasolineIt'd been a long hard yearShe had a lot on her mind and she didn't pay attentionshe was going way too fastBefore she knew it she was spinning on a thin black sheet of glassShe saw both their lives flash before her eyesShe didn't even have time to cryShe was so scaredShe threw her hands up in the air

Obama take the wheelTake it from my handsCause I can't do this on my ownI'm letting goSo give me one more chanceTo save me from this road I'm onObama take the wheel

rcocean said: So he gets 800,000 viewers to Chris Matthew's 400,000. 12-15 million listen to Rush Limbaugh every day.

Yeah, it's cable news, and the audience is a fraction of the audience of some other types of news programming, including talk radio, but also the nightly news broadcasts of the evil liberal networks, NBC, ABC, and CBS. Katie Couric gets several-fold the viewers of O'Reilly.

If you want to play "mine is bigger than yours," I would point out that the Islamofascist-loving NPR has as many listeners as Rush Limbaugh. Each of the two programs Morning Edition and All Things Considered has audience in the Limbaugh range.

Titus said, By the way Jonah Goldberg is the definition of doughy but you won't hear that from Althouse.

Are you kidding? (Well, she wouldn't call him doughy, that's true.) But she would challenge his idiotic views. One of the highlights of the Althouse blog (and off-blog Althouse) for a liberal fan was her showdown with the fat pantload over the events at the Liberty Fund Conference.

I think the only times I have ever seen Althouse defend liberal values was on those occasions when she attacked racism.

Like anyone who attempts to attack racism, Althouse was dragged over the coals and had very few defenders during that controversy, and I greatly admired and appreciated her courage in standing her ground and defending what should be core American values.

Are you kidding? (Well, she wouldn't call him doughy, that's true.) But she would challenge his idiotic views. One of the highlights of the Althouse blog (and off-blog Althouse) for a liberal fan was her showdown with the fat pantload over the events at the Liberty Fund Conference.

rcocean said: Glad you agree that Olberloon is an insignificant fly compared to Rush Limbaugh.First of all, I did not agree that Olbermann is an insignificant fly, any more than I would agree that Fox News or CNN are "insignificant." You should also bear in mind that Limbaugh's average listener only listens for 10 minutes, rather than the much more sustained patterns of NPR listeners.

I realize Olbermann bothers you enormously, despite his fly-like status, because he disrupts the perfect symmetry you once enjoyed of a media either cowed into "objectivity" or openly right-wing, but there are a lot of people who are happy to finally have an openly liberal voice on television news. It's long overdue.

rcocean said: I'm still waiting for NBC to replace Chris Matthews with "popular" Olbermann on Sunday. But I doubt it will ever happen.If you doubt it will ever happen, why are you still waiting?

But yet, I agree with your reasoning: NBC would never give a coveted Sunday slot to anyone who doesn't toe a much more conservative line, like Matthews.

George Mahal said, Olbermann is an Obama Shill in the same way Brit Hume is a Bush shill, don't kid yourself. I'm not sure I would agree Olbermann is an Obama shill (but you might be able to convince me). But I would agree he's a shill for the Democrats, like Fox News and talk radio are shills for Republicans.

I think Obama has shifted to support Obama over the last month or so, ever since the controversial remarks about Obama started coming out of the Clinton campaign (e.g., "Jesse Jackson won SC twice).

Is your liking for Olbermann based on his politics or his shallow, pompous personality?

And he doesn't bother me since I never watch him. I see him in little internet clips saying stupid & outrageous things.

BTW, I also saw his C-span interview. Watch it. He comes off as a pompous egotistical clown. Did you know he tapes and watches all his old shows? Or that he suffered a severe head injury before going to MSNBC? He's a former sportcaster who can't debate anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy.

Interesting how the reaction of Europeans to the soaring, intoxicating oratory of the inspiring guy who says little of substance is so negative. Spengler, der Spiegle, even BBC columist Gierson are calling the Obama act a load. Perhaps because they were a lot closer in experiencing the fruits of other intoxicating orators - WWII rubble piles & coffins, the Gulags and the stench of death surrounding NKVD buildings..

From BBC Column: But there is no room for thoughtfulness in the turbulent world of Obamania. Hillary Clinton, his rival in the fight for the Democratic nomination, suffers from the same problems as traditional companies in the automotive and engineering industries did when confronted with the hype of the New Economy. She is out of touch with his supporters. She uses language to explain, while Obama uses rhetoric to intoxicate. She tells voters what she is bringing to the table. He tells them what they can become. If Clinton is a solid stock, Obama is an option. If she's a secure investment, he is speculation.

When the New Economy reached its conclusion, people suddenly realized that their hopes were dashed and their cravings for quick riches left unfulfilled. In 2002, Worldcom's stock price fell to less than 10 cents.

If democracy functions only half as well as the market economy, the Obama bubble will burst. The burning question is: When? Will it happen before the Democratic nomination this August -- or not until afterwards?

*********************Verso - ," I would point out that the Islamofascist-loving NPR has as many listeners as Rush Limbaugh. Each of the two programs Morning Edition and All Things Considered has audience in the Limbaugh range.

That is splendid news! Could that possibly mean, as the shows must be making Rush-level money, that we taxpayers can abandon footing the bill for entertainment welfare for well-heeled teachers, gov't employees, and other liberal minions? Sample NPR interview:

Dalton "Hushpuppy" Smith, who several times took MLK's clothes for drycleaning in Atlanta.

NPR Interviewer; "My gosh, Mr Hushpuppy, how blessed you were to handle Saint Martin's very clothing. You are a living part of history."

Hushpuppy; "Brother was one of the Rev's poker partners. Told me I could make an extra 50 cent or so takin and fetchen' the Rev's dry cleaning."

NPR Interviewer; "Were you blessed and uplifted?"

Hushpuppy; "Dunno. King never tipped."

NPR Interviewer; "I mean, morally and spiritually. As a white woman, I'd be thrilled with the honor of being selected to do Kings laundry pickup."

Hushpuppy; "He never said much to me, mostly 'Put that suit down here, boy'. Cat did offer me a smoke and a shot of whiskey once and said they was short a poker player but I playen none and told him so. Another time he made me take a suit back 'cause it still had fried chicken grease stains all on they sleeves still."

NPR Interviewer; "But the honor. The honor!"

Hushpuppy; "Woulda been nicer if he tipped. Finally one o'the Rev's men gave me a fydollabill 'cause I said I was sick of not getting no real money..Still quit."

NPR Interviewer; "Well, there you have it. Dalton "Hushpuppy" Smith. Living history. A man who not only touched the clothes of the Great Man, but actually talked to him..."

Hushpuppy; "Guess so. Mostly he tole me to hang his stuff up in a closet and take the wrap off."

Keith Olbermann, the foul mouthed, immature, snorting, foaming at the motuh, rabid attack dog? He's some kind of sports announcer and baseball card collector isn't he? He is nothing but a hormonal teenager in an empty suit.

His whole schtick is hate Bush. When Bush is out of office, Olbermann is out of a job. He is the epitome of irresponsible punditry.

It may not be smart, tactically, and although I am an Obama supporter, it's pretty clear that the press has been extremely hard on Hillary and quite favorable to Obama. I don't expect that favorable treatment to last much longer, however. Once Hillary is out of the race (assuming that happens), it's going to get ugly.

Ann said, Is she ready to opt out of NAFTA in 6 months? She says yes — unless it can be renegotiated on labor and environmental standards.

This is outstanding news, and I hope she really means it. NAFTA has been a disaster. We should not be asking Americans to compete with people who don't own shoes and live in grass huts. (Hyperbole, but the point being we are asking Americans to compete with 3rd world labor.)

This is outstanding news, and I hope she really means it. NAFTA has been a disaster. We should not be asking Americans to compete with people who don't own shoes and live in grass huts. (Hyperbole, but the point being we are asking Americans to compete with 3rd world labor.)

Not really. Rather, we are asking Americans to compete where they have an advantage and buy when they don't. While forcing Americans to buy American shoes, for example, might allow a small number of Americans to continue to make shoes, the extra cost of those shoes comes out of everyone else's pockets. The net result is that under your scheme, most of us are poorer, but some small number of people in this country are earning more doing what someone somewhere else in the world can do cheaper.

Verso said...it's pretty clear that the press has been extremely hard on Hillary and quite favorable to Obama.

That is a lot of BS. Hillary has had a free ride from the press. When was the last time one of those little French Poodles had to apologize about something said about Obama. The media is on the Clinton script. Have they challenged her veracity, her record, her accomplsihments? Nope. Nothing. Get real.

"This is outstanding news, and I hope she really means it. NAFTA has been a disaster. We should not be asking Americans to compete with people who don't own shoes and live in grass huts. (Hyperbole, but the point being we are asking Americans to compete with 3rd world labor.)"

A disaster for who? The Fortune 500, and the Wall Street Journal love NAFTA. Cheap labor (whether through NAFTA or massive legal/illegal immigration) is their goal.

Everyone is voting for BarackCause he's got what all the rest lack Everyone wants to back -- BarackBarack is on the right track.

'Cause he's got high hopes He's got high hopes2008’s the year for his high hopes. Come on and vote for ObamaVote for ObamaAnd we'll come out on top!Oops, there goes the opposition - ker - Oops, there goes the opposition - ker - Oops, there goes the opposition - KERPLOP! O—B—A—M—A

Barack's the nation's favorite guy Everyone wants to back -- Barack Barack is on the right track.

'Cause he's got high hopesHe's got high hopes2008’s the year for his high hopes. Come on and vote for ObamaVote for Obama Keep America strong. Obama, he just keeps rollin' - a - Obama, he just keeps rollin' - a - Obama, he just keeps rollin' along.

Bobby Flay lost. The country is going to hell in a basket. I am really depressed. Suicide was invading my thoughts. I could not help myself. I just did not want to live any longer in a world that was doomed. I put it off as long as I could. I stared into the void. I finally decided to do one last thing to save myself.

I called the suicide hotline. How was I supposed to know they outsourced all the hotlines to Pakistan. I told the guy at the end of the line my tale of woe. I told him he was my last chance. I told him I really, really wanted to die by my own hand. Suicide was my only salvation.

When she was vice president, oops, I'm sorry, First Lady, she made a comment that created quite a stir amongst the Jewish people here and the Israelis. It was in support of the Palestinian terrorists and was to the effect that the Jews better learn to live with them and accept them as a legitimate political force.

I laugh everytime Obama says he had "good judgment" in 2002 regarding Iraq. Judgment? Judgment usually denotes an informed response. The fact is, Obama was making a politically motivated guess back in 2002. Obama knew nothing about the issue then. If the war was successful he would just say he didn't have all the information about it.

It's easy to oppose something when you don't have to vote on it. His real judgment has been shown recently in his rejection of the surge and his vote to withdraw immediatly.

Moreover, I don't get the democrats and their health care position. They say they are for "change" but their proposals change nothing. They just want to expand schip to the 15% uninsured, half of which are illegal aliens and another 1/4 young adults who don't need it. How about the rest of us 90% who have health care but need it to be better. The democrats offer us nothing. No change. Nothing.

Obama's response to being the most liberal senator was smart, but something that won't work in the General. Obama tried to point out that the National Journal poll is wrong. The fact is, Obama is very vert liberal. He wants higher taxes, more spending, universal health care, a dovish foreign policy, he is 100% NARAL, etc. etc..

Both Obama and Clinton are abysmal on NAFTA. It is surprising to see Clinton have to run away from NAFTA, which is one of the great achievements of the Clinton Administration. The 1990s were boom times partly because Clinton embraced free trade.

Moreover, the export industry is booming right now because of the low dollar. It seems insane to go against the the biggest bright spot in the economy right now to pander to union leaders in Ohio. Moreover, getting rifd of NAFTA only means more ilegal immigration. I guarantee Obama will attempt to weasel out of this one in the general election.

Cederford said, That is splendid news! Could that possibly mean, as the shows must be making Rush-level money, that we taxpayers can abandon footing the bill for entertainment welfare for well-heeled teachers, gov't employees, and other liberal minions?

Making Rush-level money? You aren't aware that public radio has no commercials?

Taxpayers abandon footing the bill? "About 2% of NPR's funding comes from bidding on government grants and programs, chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the remainder comes from member station dues, foundation grants, and corporate underwriting."

I realize that reactionaries don't like NPR, but it exists because the public likes it, wants it, and supports it.

First of all: Well-heeled teachers? LOL. That's funny. I take it you don't know any teachers. Leave it to consevatives to resent the income teachers earn. What kind of person hates teachers?

Second: You don't know the profile of the audience very well. I have a die-hard Republican co-worker and bush lover who listens to ATC every day. I have a far-right Pentacostal co-worker who homeschools his children and loves public radio because it contains broadcasting he can let his children listen to, including Prarie Home Companion. He's a diehard conservative and ultra-religious, but he's not an ideological zealot and doesn't realize that to be a good conservative he's suppose to hate NPR.

Obama claims that he is a uniter, yet he runs one of the most divisive campaigns. Obama is only out to help some people. This includes the 15% uninsured, and people who don't work for the drug companies, the banks, the oil companies, etc..and special interest groups (groups he doesn't like).

Second: You don't know the profile of the audience very well. I have a die-hard Republican co-worker and bush lover who listens to ATC every day.

Well, I think you are missing Ceder's point. I also listen to NPR. It is high quality radio. And I enjoy many of its programs. But, lets not kid ourselves. NPR is lefty elitist radio. Anyone who doesn't know it's left and elitist that when they are listening to it is a lefty elitest (i.e. a well heeled teacher).

Bruce Hayden said, regarding NAFTA, that "someone somewhere else in the world can do [certain jobs] cheaper."

Well of course. That has never been in doubt. We could do them cheaper here, too, if we were willing to become a wealthy and highly productive nation with 3rd world standards for the majority of our population. There's no reason Americans should sign on to that program. We don't want to live in grass huts. We like owning shoes.

Why should we lower our standards to those of Mexico or Burma? Why don't we instead demand that they raise their standards by refusing to trade with them unless they provide their people with a standard of living that should be considered a human right?

I realize that paleoconservative capitalists have no problem with immiserating economic policies that create widespread poverty, but don't expect Americans to like it. Especially after we spent 2 or 3 generations as a first world nation with the largest middle class and most equitibile distribution of wealth in world history, thanks to the FDR Democrats.

Rush gets a big helping hand from conservative station owners and the owners of broadcast corporations that want to spread a message that they should be given tax cuts, the government is evil, and the rich should be given free reign to do whatever they want. There's welfare for right-wing pundits, too.

The idea that NPR gets a "big helping hand" from government is a myth. Only about 2% of their revenue comes from the government, and it probably costs no more than blowing up a couple of wedding parties in Iraq or Afghanistan. And NPR doesn't breed terrorism.

Taxpayers abandon footing the bill? "About 2% of NPR's funding comes from bidding on government grants and programs, chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the remainder comes from member station dues

Hmm... the last I heard, member station dues were tax deductible, meaning that over 30% of member dues are funded by the federal government and another 2-3% by states. NPR doesn't seem much like a charity does it? Charitable causes are usually things that people don't get something in return for (other than a good heart) after they donate the money. Yet with NPR, you get free radio. Hmmm...

I'm glad that Obama and Hillary are against "anti-semitism" and "racism".

We can never denounce these evils too often. In fact those that fail to denounce them - constantly - are often guilty of harboring these kind of thoughts themselves.

Of course, we hear fewer and fewer openly "anti-semitic" remarks. And 52 of the 100 most powerful Americans are Jewish. But that doesn't mean there is less anti-semitism, it means the exact opposite! It means we have to redouble our efforts to unmask and liquidate the covert "anti-semites" and "racists". These counter-revolutionaries have just gone underground.

And the same people who are calling Barack H. Obama "Barrack Hussain Obama" were probably buring black churches during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Madison Man said, If you're comparing listener totals, does it matter where they come from or who is paying the bills? Is Uncle Sam requiring that people listen to NPR?

Good point. They just can't come to terms with the reality that NPR's two flagship news programs have double the audience of Limbaugh. And the NPR listeners listen for much longer. Rush's average audience member is tuned in for ten minutes, probably while rushing from point A to point B in the car.

Furthermore, NPR conducts itself with integrity, while Rush is a racist hatemonger whose entire routine is based on lies.

Undoing NAFTA = Democrats f*cking the U.S.'s two largest trading partners AND the American consumer for the sake of votes from the economically illiterate and union thugs.

By the way, all you soft-power liberal types - international commerce is the biggest part of international relations, by far. It dwarfs "diplomacy" and "security" relationships. Unplug NAFTA and other trade agreements, poof, there goes your soft power.

But what else would we expect from idiots than mindlessly self-defeating gestures?

rcocean said, A disaster for who? The Fortune 500, and the Wall Street Journal love NAFTA. Cheap labor (whether through NAFTA or massive legal/illegal immigration) is their goal.

You're absolutely right. It's been a massive boon for the rich. Which is why the rich have gotten so much richer in the last decade, while everyone else has either lost income or remained stagnant. That's exactly why NAFTA is a disaster for the overwhelming majority of Americans.

I think you will agree that the benefits of our economic system and economic policies flow entirely and exclusively to the very rich. 100% of economic growth for the last decades has gone to the top 1%. Everyone else is stuck where they were in the 1970s.

Well, yeah, you're right. I forgot about those psuedo-commercial things they play infrequently. But you obviously know what I was talking about. NPR is not operated on an ad-revenue model like regular radio.

That's interesting. How come a large portion of "every one else" owns a cell phone, a microwave, multiple TVs, DVD players, cable television, computers, access to MRIs, Prozac, Invitro fertilizaiton etc... In fact a good portion of the 0-99% buys gormet coffee every day.

I remember my dad buying a jig saw from the local hardware store for $75 in the late 1970s. It had one speed and weigned a ton. Today, I can by a light weight variable speed jig saw from home depot for $40.

But, being one of those 0-99%ers, I guess my life is no better than the 1970s.

Sloanasaurus said, I laugh everytime Obama says he had "good judgment" in 2002 regarding Iraq. Judgment? Judgment usually denotes an informed response. The fact is, Obama was making a politically motivated guess back in 2002. Obama knew nothing about the issue then. If the war was successful he would just say he didn't have all the information about it.

A lot of us knew before the invasion that the war would be a disaster and was a bad idea. Just because the media refused to give any attention to anyone who wasn't an enthusiastic war supporter doesn't mean there weren't well founded concerns that were ultimately proven correct.

Back then, you should have listened to the CinC of Central Command, Anthony Zinni, or General Shinseki, or any one of a number of other people who were proven right when they warned that the bush administration was leading us into disaster.

Sloanasaurus said, Hmm... the last I heard, member station dues were tax deductible, meaning that over 30% of member dues are funded by the federal government and another 2-3% by states.

You could be right. I got that information from Wikipedia, but maybe the whole picture is more complicated.

Even if 30% or 50% or 100% of the budget is tax-payer funded, I don't have a problem with it. I'm not one of those who hates government and thinks everything it does is evil. I think the military, NASA, public schools, the postal service, and many other government services are good things and make life better for all Americans.

I think there's a large amount of myth in the claim that NPR is funded by the government, but I will grant that I'm not clear on the exact breakdown.

A lot of us knew before the invasion that the war would be a disaster and was a bad idea.

No you didn't. You made this statement because you were anti-war. Most people had no idea what the results would be. The same people said Gulf War I would be a disaster.

Is this how you make yourself feel better about your support for the greatest foreign policy disaster in the history of the United States and one of the nation's greatest disasters since the Civil War?

Aren't you overstating things a bit? You could be right if Al Qaeda takes over Iraq. But, as of today, that looks unlikely. Therefore, I am not sure how Iraq could be considered a disaster. Now Saddam in charge with $100 per bbl oil - that would be a disaster.

As of today, the greatest foreign policy diaster of the United States remains our cooperation in the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. You would need a half million more American deaths in Iraq to top that one.

Even if 30% or 50% or 100% of the budget is tax-payer funded, I don't have a problem with it. I'm not one of those who hates government and thinks everything it does is evil.

Yeah, but although I agree that NPR is good sometimes, it is still mostly elite left wing stuff. Christian conservatives who represent 20% of our population get nothing from it. Should the government be funding that? You would be screaming bloody murder if "donations" to Rush were tax deductible.

"But, being one of those 0-99%ers, I guess my life is no better than the 1970s."

Verso and associated idiots miss the days of '70's American iron, when due to trade barriers against quality Japanese imports, American consumers were forced to buy sh*tty American cars built by feather-bedding American labor unions - and even then, Toyota, Datsun and Honda could hardly keep their lots stocked with their higher priced cars.

The only people stuck in the '70's are the idiots who think Jimmy Carter was a better president than either Gerald Ford or Ronald Reagan, and that the federal government can tax and tariff the American people into higher standards of living. Carter's "malaise speech" in the '70's were the high-water mark for contemporary Liberals - the U.S. was defeated in Vietnam, the economy was racked by inflation, high interest and confiscatory tax rates, no growth and energy shocks; the Republicans were lead by Bob Michael in the House, the Soviets were expanding into Afghanistan; and Americans were held hostage to Iranian Mullahs in Tehran and to Liberals at home.

And then Americans elected Ronald Reagan, freeing American overseas from the Mullahs and themselves from Liberals. It was a watershed moment. Tonight we saw that the Democrats want to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear, when America was weak, poor, and didn't have enough self-confidence to stop pissing on its own shoes.

Sloanasaurus said, That's interesting. How come a large portion of "every one else" owns a cell phone, a microwave, multiple TVs, DVD players, cable television, computers, access to MRIs, Prozac, Invitro fertilizaiton etc... In fact a good portion of the 0-99% buys gormet coffee every day.

I remember my dad buying a jig saw from the local hardware store for $75 in the late 1970s. It had one speed and weigned a ton. Today, I can by a light weight variable speed jig saw from home depot for $40.

But, being one of those 0-99%ers, I guess my life is no better than the 1970s.

In both terms of real income and share of national income, Americans are stuck where they were in the 1970s. Despite massive economic growth in the intervening years, Americans have the same amount of income that they did 30-35 years ago.

So what if we can afford a microwave oven or a cell phone? What is that supposed to prove? We're a rich country. We have the richest (or close to it) and largest middle class in the world, thanks to liberal Democratic government starting with FDR.

I didn't say we were living in poverty. I said what is true: The entire portion of economic growth since the 1970s has gone exclusively to the rich.

That doesn't mean there aren't toys available today that weren't available in 1970. I can buy a computer now and couldn't then. Your miter saw is another example.

But neither of those has anything to do with what I was pointing out, which is that incomes remain stagnant despite massive economic growth.

Why is that, Sloan? I'll tell you: Because the system has been set up so that all economic growth benefits the top 5% and no one else. Note the key word "growth." Not "activity," but "growth." So yes, you and I benefit from economic activity, but the bottom 99% gets no share in the growth.

Sloanasaurus said, Christian conservatives who represent 20% of our population get nothing from it. Should the government be funding that? You would be screaming bloody murder if "donations" to Rush were tax deductible.

First of all, I've enjoyed the dialogue, but unforunately have to go to bed soon, but i will answer a couple more of these from you.

I disagree that Christian Conservatives get nothing from NPR AND that it is 'mostly liberal elite stuff.' It's among the safest programming for Christian conservatives because it's not laced with profanity and sex like private radio. Classical music is family friendly programming. Garrison Keillor's Prarie Home Companion is family friendly and I know many Christians who listen to it every week wtih their families. They aren't bent out of shape or threatened by the fact that Keilor is a liberal, but they do like the show. Car Talk is enjoyed by all sorts of people and again is family friendly.

you're right, I would be apoplectic if Pigman Limbaugh was funded by tax money, but then I pay to broadcast his vile crap on Armed Forces Radio to brainwash our troops. I don't like it but there's not a hell of a lot I can do about it. I live in a democracy and the public makes decisions that I sometimes disagree with. I can accept that.

Christian conservative are also dispropritionately found in rural areas with low populations and limited radio broadcasts. One of the great things about public radio is it's available almost everywhere in the United States, so again, in rural areas it is greatly valued because it is one of the only stations available. Christians don't like sex-filled country music or rock n' roll and they don't have to worry about that with public radio.

Althouse should just admit that American Idol is much more fun than the political sh*t but she blogs about the political sh*t more nowadays because she's a blog bigshot and all the blog bigshots have to care oh-so-much about the primaries in order to be considered "serious bloggers".

But neither of those has anything to do with what I was pointing out, which is that incomes remain stagnant despite massive economic growth.

It has everything to do with it. Income is a meaningless concept unless you understand what it means in terms of standard of living.

The vast amounts of capital that have been generated in the last 25 years of the boom has largely been invested in creating low cost consumer products to sell to the average person. I may buy a cell phone for $50, but behind that cheap price is massive amounts of cost that went into developing that phone. I should add some of this cost and include it in my "real income." I have more access to information with my $400 computer than the richest man in the world had in 1975. Maybe I should add some $$$ to my income to account for this access.

In the same sense, how much has the standard of living for a wealthy person improved beyond that of a person at 50% in America. How much more value do you really get out of life from owning a BMW vs. a Chevy. The top 1% may appear to have more wealth, but what good does having 100 cell phones do for you? The best thing the wealthy do is reinvest their vast wealth into companies that make more high tech gadgets that the rest of us will some day be able to buy to improve our lives.

...not laced with profanity and sex like private radio. Classical music is family friendly programming. Garrison Keillor's Prarie Home Companion is family friendly and I know many Christians who listen to it every week wtih their families. They aren't bent out of shape or threatened by the fact that Keilor is a liberal, but they do like the show.

...you're right, I would be apoplectic if Pigman Limbaugh was funded by tax money, but then I pay to broadcast his vile crap on Armed Forces Radio to brainwash our troops.

The difference here is that NPR presents propaganda under the guise of being a news service, while Rush is honest about his objectivity.

I also find the shifting standards to be humorous - NPR is considered "safe" but the Dems are boycotting a FOX debate with Brit Hume and Mara Liason [of NPR] as moderators....

We have the richest (or close to it) and largest middle class in the world, thanks to liberal Democratic government starting with FDR.

Huh?

The free market created the middle class. FDR didn't invent products like the washing machine, which are largely responsible for the independence of women in the workplace.

Our lives are vastly superior to those who lived 25-50-75 years ago because of ideas from people like Henry Ford, who had the freedom to make money by coming up with a way to sell cars to the average joe. Today a car is probably cheaper as a percentage of income for the average person than a horse was in 1850.

AJLynch - Obama just said:"Israel is one of our most important allies in that region". Only one of them? He may regret being so vague here. Is he pandering to the Arab world ?

Obama is right. Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, Oman, and KSA are critical strategic allies. Jordan is a useful ally. Bahrain is HQ for the American 6th Naval Fleet. Dubai is a friend and world-leader in finance and business as potent as Singapore.

These countries have mostly been our allies since the end of WWI, with popular opinion turning against America starting only in the 70s over our support of Zionism.

One can even argue that overall, our "special relationship" with Israel born of the intersection of jewish-american media clout and reliable money - and US politicians hunger for both commodities - has been a big liability for America. Economically, diplomatically. Isreal has no geostrategic importance. It's backwater importance is in religious culture, and it's ability to militarily menace areas of true strategic importance.

Obama seeks a more balanced ME policy and recognizes that we have Muslim allies that deserve our full consideration and respect for their economic and strategic land importance.

************************While ideological free traders still defend our bad trade deals on the idea that cheap Chinese trinkets trump the industrial and technological gutting of America and the dying dollar now sliding towards toilet paper value....for the most part, the public is growingly siding with the Democrats.

It is encouraging to hear Obama and Hillary admit that we screwed ourselves badly on free trade. That we cannot become a 3rd World shithole that makes nothing while the people get foreign nation exporter loans and get by on cheap imports.

Reagan Democrats are returning back to the Dem Party in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, even down South where the industrial gutting and wage suppression of ordinary Americans has been every bit as bad as the Northeast and Midwest.

The sense that the Republicans are owned and run by the corporatists and globalists now selling America out is quite strong in us moderate Republicans.

A major drug company announced the closing of three manfacturing plants in Michigan full of "high tech, new 80s economy, computerized manufacturing. Gone to Asia and PR, because of Fed special tax breaks only Puerto Rico gets. Another 10,000 jobs gone. Worse, the company announced it will eventually remove 80% of R&D currently located in America because PhD scientists can be had in Russia, China, India and it's two big Muslim neighbors for 1/3rd the cost of Americans. While of course maintaining it's Japanese and EU facilities because that employment is mandated if they are to have access to sell in those markets...

Presumably Republican free traders will continue to insist on the Big Pharma Exception to free trade.

Half the Republicans I know have switched sides since the Dubya Bush years escalated the worker bee screwing that began in Reagan's free market days and worsened even more under Clinton's wall street henchmen...which was thought to be the nadir until Dubya and his gang of transnationalist fatcats showed up.

Mortimer, I will double check on the transcript, but I did not hear him denounce Farrakhan. He only denounced anti-Semitism and was cagey about the rest of it.

I'm not finding a transcript on MSNBC's site yet, but the video of the exchange is here.

Highlights:

0:25 "I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think they are unacceptable and reprehensible."

1:10 "I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements." (emphasis added)

1:25 "I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That's why I have consistently denounced it. This is not something new. I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I have been very clear in terms of believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate, and I have consistently distanced myself from him."

I have a hard time seeing how this could be viewed as insufficient by any reasonable human being. Obama denounces (okay, reports that he has in the past denounced, if you want to be picky about it) mostly Farrakhan's "statements" and "record," but at one point actually does denounce Farrakhan personally. What more were you looking for?

I'm glad I chose AI instead. I thought David Archuleta knocked it out of the park. In fact, I have come to hate that song because it's been done badly by so many people, and his rendition actually brought tears to my eyes. However, I do not want to "squeeze him and take his head off and stick him on my rear view mirror," or whatever the hell Paula said! The guy is amazingly talented, and I think his humility rings true. What can he say, he's amazing, and I wish him a great career.

"I have been very clear in my denunciations of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think unacceptable and reprehensible."

A moment later: "I have been very clear in my denunciations of him, and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments."

Another moment later: "I have consistently denounced it.... I have been very clear in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate and I have consistently distanced myself from him."

What did Althouse hear? She said:

"He blusters."

"He still hasn't denounced Farrakhan. She loses the moment and says "good, good." He beams. We go to commercial. Her moment is squandered. He got away with something there."

"I will double check on the transcript, but I did not hear him denounce Farrakhan. He only denounced anti-Semitism and was cagey about the rest of it."

"Obama is confronted with his "most liberal" ranking. I find his talking tiresome and will need to check the transcript to see if he said anything interesting."

Gee, a point that speaks directly to your own political gender confusion, and you zone out. Obama points out that he's considered more liberal by the National Journal because he voted in favor of an independent public integrity office for the Senate, which they deem to be more "liberal." I guess that means that favoring an inherently more biased internal procedure for investigating public corruption within the Senate is considered more "conservative". Obama's point being that such labels are stupid and antiquated (which they are) and reflective of a mindset that is backwards looking -- out of the Lee Atwater 80's school of scorched earth politics:

Madison, considering that he has the daily prime time news show on the news network it would be embarrassing if he *didn't* have the best ratings at MSNBC. I just think it is funny to brag about someone being the number one guy at the last-place network; its like bragging about winning the Special Olympics.

The vast amounts of capital that have been generated in the last 25 years of the boom has largely been invested in creating low cost consumer products to sell to the average person. I may buy a cell phone for $50, but behind that cheap price is massive amounts of cost that went into developing that phone. I should add some of this cost and include it in my "real income." I have more access to information with my $400 computer than the richest man in the world had in 1975. Maybe I should add some $$$ to my income to account for this access.

Here's your %50 cell with 5 crappy ringtones (so you have to buy one that you aren't embarrassed to go off in public). Be happy with your job with shrinking benefits and never mind social security is held up with toothpicks. The economy is growing!! Why aren't you happy? You have access to the largest pool of porn in the history of man!! Can't afford $50,000 to send your kid to college? What about that cool $50 cell phone???

A major drug company announced the closing of three manfacturing plants in Michigan full of "high tech, new 80s economy, computerized manufacturing. Gone to Asia and PR, because of Fed special tax breaks only Puerto Rico gets. Another 10,000 jobs gone. Worse, the company announced it will eventually remove 80% of R&D currently located in America because PhD scientists can be had in Russia, China, India and it's two big Muslim neighbors for 1/3rd the cost of Americans

So... are you going to stick a gun in the face of these companies and force them to stay open. I have a good idea... maybe lower corporate tax rates so we at least can be in the middle of the pack rather than having the second highest in the world.

There are so many people going to college now that its very difficult to get into large public universities such as UW Madison. When I attended you needed to be in the top half of your class. Now you need to be in the top 10%.

I'm not saying you need megabucks to go to college. I put myself through, but you have to admit tuitions are skyrocketing and if you forecast the costs for a child born today, even accounting for inflation, it's becoming prohibitive.

I don't think only the elite should be able to attend a place like U of Mich. Right now it's at $10k a year, in state. If you're a middle class family scholarships and/or lots of loans are your only shot.

Anyway, I just responding to a "the incredible amount of wealth of the past quarter century has gone to a few but we sure got some cool electronic gizmos" post.

Hmm... the last I heard, member station dues were tax deductible, meaning that over 30% of member dues are funded by the federal government and another 2-3% by states.

What kind of Republican apostasy is this? Just because the government is confiscating less of my money doesn't mean that the government is funding the charities I choose to support.

idiots miss the days of '70's American iron, when due to trade barriers against quality Japanese imports, American consumers were forced to buy sh*tty American cars built by feather-bedding American labor unions

American corporate managers, country-club-Republicans all, told the workers what to build. The union workers did not design the cars, they did not lay out the factories, they could only work within the capabilities of the systems that management chose. Did you ever work on an assembly line? You work damn hard, and you are in continuous movement.

Note that for decades, companies like Honda, Toyota, BMW, and Mercedes have been building high quality cars with an all-American workforce. But unlike the Big Three's, their management's heads are not shoved up their asses.

I put myself through, but you have to admit tuitions are skyrocketing and if you forecast the costs for a child born today, even accounting for inflation, it's becoming prohibitive.

Common sense would tell you that the cost of a college education can't become prohibitive. If it was prohibitive, the colleges would go out of business because nobody would pay to go to them.

What you really mean is that college is *expensive*. Well, duh. A college degree earns you hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of your life, especially if you major in something useful instead of Spanish Literature or Gender Studies. College is expensive because of simple supply and demand -- lots of people want to go to college and colleges can afford to be choosier, and charge more. Colleges know people will scrimp, save, and borrow to get a diploma, because in the long run they'll make that money back many times over.

Actually, Rev, I'm not sure it is a given that they make their money back if you factor in interest. (ISTR reading an essay in college called "College is a Waste of Time and Money" that made that point.)

Also, many colleges don't need students to survive, as weird as that sounds. UC campuses seem to regularly debate getting rid of the students. (I'm not joking.)

"ISTR reading an essay in college called "College is a Waste of Time and Money" that made that point."

Seems easy enough to test. Find a group of kids that are not going to college. Find a comparable group of kids that are (comparable in age, gender, race, socio-economic level, home stability, et al).

See how each group does.

Want your kid to be in the 'not going' group?

I occasionally hire. While I do not think a college education is necessary for the positions I fill, there is enough competition that I give almost no consideration to anyone without a college education (and by 'almost no' I really mean 'no', but I imagine it is possible that someday I'll find someone who so blows me away that I'll consider them).

If I have two candidates, both who have the right personality and both of who appear to be sharp, I am going to go with the one who showed the planning skills and dedication required to go to college and to graduate over someone who didn't.

Verso said…I think Obama has shifted to support Obama over the last month or so, ever since the controversial remarks about Obama started coming out of the Clinton campaign (e.g., "Jesse Jackson won SC twice).

Could you be a little more vague next time. Some of us almost figured out what you were trying to say?

As to Keith Olbermann, he is nothing but a partisan hack who can't shut up even though he doesn't have anything to say. He wasn’t even a good sports caster.

Verso, you also said- “In the meantime, everyone will assume you are lying again.”

You and only you will assume that.

“The American people like public radio.” If that were true, then it would not need to be sponsored or funded by the taxpayer. It could stand alone.

You also said; “I see "objective" and "subjective" are your new words of the week.”

You have made it very obvious that you do not know the difference between the two which accounts for your intellectual dishonesty.

It is also obvious that you are not educated- I do not mean you do not have a degree. Anyone can get one of those. I mean educated. History, especially economic history, has disproved every point you have made. Get a clue- Wiki is not the be all and end all of research.

You are nothing more than one of those people who think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices.

Now go to bed like a good little boy and take your nappy. Maybe the government fairy will leave a large sized grant under your pillow.

Dude your list sucks. How could you leave out "The Wind beneath My Wings." "People." "I will always Love You." "That Titanic bullshit song that I forget the name of but makes me puke when I think of that camel toe jump suit wearing boner nosed frog singer that I had to pay $350 to see in Vegas because my wife wanted to go see her." Jeez.

Hey bill I was just busting on you. You have some great choices on your list. Very ballsy to put Stairway on this list. That is one of the most over rated songs of all time. Also a lot of Springsteen sucks donkey dick. Like Born to Run, really, really over rated. Some dude on WNEW in New York played it ten times in row when it first came out. It was mind bogglingly bad.

Matt Welch had some great quotes about Springsteen; unfortunately, that post and most of 2006 seems to be missing. Luckily I copied most of it and added some of own. Just in case anyone is still reading this and clicks over -- I will delete any support for Bruce Springsteen; no matter how reasoned and pleasant you are.

David Archuleta has a good voice, but his song choice and has been abysmal. He's also getting cocky--though hides it behind the "aw shucks" smile.

Idol, especially in the early stages, isn't about singing as much as it is about personality. Archuleta is grabbing the two main demographic votes--young girls and older moms. He'll make it to the top six on this alone.

Except, he will screw up one week--everyone does--and it will be awful. As long as the other contestants remain their extremely bland selves, this won't matter. But, it's likely a few will realize they need to break out.

Tribal voting is very important in American Idol just like in the primaries. Little Davey seems to have the tweener vote to himself since most of the other guys are too old. His only rival for that demographic would be Danny Noriega but he is just too bitchy. I think you can really ping the gaydar and still win but not if you are over the top with it. Clay Aiken was a good example from a previous season. The question is who will Vote for the Worst get behind. I think it will be Cha-cheese-z but Noreiga is a possiblity.

Michael_H, I partly agree with you. I'd love to hear the acoustic version. I'm not a big fan of Parton's voice and when the band gets going she almost drowns out some scorching fiddle and banjo playing.

Also on the list, any song covered by the legend in his own mind PeterLemongello. I remember when a tvcommercial for his album was on every late night channel in New York for weeks and months at time.He was all over the place with his Harry Reems haircut and suit with the open shirt with the wide collar. Cheesetastic baby. Solid.

MTfromCC: "Ann, you kill me:...Gee, a point that speaks directly to your own political gender confusion, and you zone out... Please pay closer attention, it was actually a very important point."

Oh, go to hell. I've watched 20+ debates and written about them. It's not like I'm signed a contract to blog every part of every debate. I get bored sometimes. I have other things to do, phone calls and conversations. I get tired. And I'm blogging. Don't you get it? I think people are interested in reading me because I say I get bored when I get bored (among other reasons). Now, I don't even feel like reading the transcript.

When Obama said he'd send a drone in to take out OBL in Pakistan if Musharaff wasn't up to it, and then implicitly seemed to be praise W. for doing the same thing two weeks back, I was surprised. I didn't think Democrats believed in deploying troops.

Oh wait, a drone isn't troops.

Still, I was surprised. I thought he was going to talk with everybody and win them over, not kill them.

I like him a lot more now after that one comment.

Btw., does he smoke and hide it? MSNBC video said he does smoke, but no one has ever seen him smoke. It's never been photographed. This guy's really smart about what gets on the screen.